In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

b. Sot· ah 11a:1 “Pithom and Raamses” (Exodus 1:11). Rav and Samuel— One says: Pithom is its name. And why is its name called Raamses ?—Because the first part keeps crumbling [mitroses].2 And one says: Raamses is its name. And why is its name called Pithom?—Because the mouth of the deep [pi tehom]3 keeps swallowing up the first part. Even though the kind of creative etymology ascribed to Rav and Samuel4 is quite commonplace in rabbinic literature, it is not clear why they found it necessary to posit that Pithom and Raamses were actually the same city,5 since this stands in stark contradiction to the words of the verse that refer to “treasure cities” in the plural.6 Perhaps it reflects the redactors’ insistence on turning the two etymologies , which could seemingly have coexisted, into a conventionally patterned dispute.7 As we observe with respect to virtually all the name-etymologies that are discussed in this study, they follow a stereotypical pattern that begins with an assertion that two names refer to the same person. Shinan8 notes two possible rationales for the midrash: • to indicate that divine justice would not permit the Egyptians to derive bene fit from their exploitation.9 • to demonstrate the wickedness of the Egyptians, who imposed such a task Sisyphean10 on their victims. Since we cannot determine the precise point of the comments, and we have no parallels in Palestinian rabbinic sources, there is not much that can be derived from this example with respect to the origins of the exegetical dispute or its possible functions within homiletical discourses. Notes 1 Ed. Liss, 1:149. 2 See Kohut, 7:284–85. The ‘Arukh itself (6:466) had a different reading: smsmtm, a reading that is attested in Midrash ha-gadol and elsewhere. See Liss, nn. 146–47; and Kasher, 8:28. 73 14: Pithom and Raamses 3 On the history of this concept, see: Daniel Sperber, “Abyss”; idem, Magic and Folklore, 47–59. Sperber traces to ancient Near Eastern mythological motifs rabbinic references (both halakhic and aggadic) to the primordial waters (as well as to impure forces threatening to burst forth from their incarceration in the deeps) and their suppression by means of potsherds and magical formulas. Cf. Buber, Midrash agadah, 121: “They dug so far until the deep waters rose, and they would lay the bricks but the deep waters would swallow them up, for this reason it was called Pithom. Do not read Pithom, but rather pi tehom.” 4 Maharsha argues that the need to expound these names was driven by their essential redundancy for the needs of the narrative (since it was ostensibly enough just to state that they built treasure cities). In reality, no justification is required for this common midrashic trope. 5 The widespread midrashic tendency to equate biblical names is discussed by Isaac Heinemann , 29–32; he provides examples (31) of identifications of places bearing different names. 6 This objection was argued forcefully by Maharsha. His solution, that one has to distinguish between the regions of Pithom and Raamses (the latter was mentioned in Genesis 47:11) and the newly built treasure city of Pithom-Raamses, is overly sophisticated. Though ready to concede that Pithom and Raamses might have been regions containing several towns, ‘Es· yosef observes that he still cannot account for the fact that the names are separated by disjunctive t) particles—a strong indication (according to accepted midrashic hermeneutics) that the names refer to separate towns. 7 In his commentary on Exodus Rabbah (51), Shinan cites some additional suggestions. Reischer offers the intriguing (but not quite persuasive) suggestion that the opinions expressed in this passage are consistent with the two opinions in the previous one about the meaning of miskenot. Crumbling structures would cause personal injury, whereas the ones that were swallowed up into the earth cause financial losses to their owners. Cf. Buber, Midrash agadah, p. 121: “Israel would struggle [Myccwrtm ] under the structure.” 8 Ibid. 9 Cited from Buber, Lekah· t· ov, 2:4. This interpretation is incorporated into Ginzberg’s paraphrase in Legends 2:249. 10 Shinan employs this expression in passing without indicating whether he is positing a conscious borrowing from the Greek myth. The question is indeed a legitimate one. It should at any rate be noted that the association arises according to Rashi’s interpretation of the text, which formed the basis for my translation. The passage is really quite obscure and...

Share